The two men named above were arrested on 21 May as they attempted to hold a monthly meeting at a local centre in the town of Gitega. They have been charged with "threatening state security" and are being held in Gitega Prison. Amnesty international considers the men to be prisoners of conscience, detained solely for the peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of assembly, association and expression.

Thacien Sibomana and Poppon Mudugu are members of "AC Genocide Crimoso", an organization which seeks to avoid any re-occurrence of genocide in Burundi by remembering the victims and engaging in open, frank discussion on the country’s history. The main delegation of the organisation met in the capital Bujumbura on 21 May and a smaller group organised a partner meeting in Gitega where they booked a room for the event at the local "Club des Amis" centre. When delegates arrived at the venue, they were prevented from entering by local police who were waiting outside the building. According to local sources, the provincial authorities had deemed the meeting to be illegal and therefore a threat to state security. "AC Genocide Crimoso" has been granted authorization to hold monthly meetings since 1997. This authorization was granted permanently by the Administrator of Gitega in December 2005.

The meeting was moved to another venue nearby but was interrupted near the end when the Governor of Gitega, the Deputy Commissioner of the Judicial Police and several police officers entered the room. They broke up the meeting and seized the agenda and minutes from Thacien Sibomana. He and Poppon Mudugu were then arrested after the meeting in a nearby bar. They were initially questioned by the Chief Prosecutor of Gitega and subsequently charged with "threatening state security". Poppon Mudugu's wife Aline Ngendankazi was also arrested, though she was later released.

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

BUJUMBURA (Reuters) - A Burundian human rights group denounced on Tuesday what it called "continuing human rights violations" by the government after three Tutsi activists were arrested for threatening state security.

The trio, members of the AC Genocide Tutsi association, were detained on Sunday in the central Gitega province, where they had travelled to attend a commemoration ceremony for Tutsis killed in 1993 at the start of the country's civil war.

Local media cited provincial officials as saying they had held an illegal meeting, which threatened public security.

"The impression we have is that the government wants to muzzle, intimidate those who express freely their opinions which the authorities are not happy about," said Jean Marie Vianey Kavumbagu, head of Burundi's biggest human rights group, Iteka.

"We are really concerned by this," he told Reuters, adding that the moves violated Burundi's constitution and international laws. A government spokesman was unavailable for comment.

The arrests come after Burundi's public prosecutor ordered a peace activist detained for criticising how the government handled peace talks with the country's sole remaining rebel group.

Former lawmaker Terence Nahimana was arrested this month by security agents for having links with the Hutu Forces for National Liberation (FNL), whose political wing he left in 1990.

Kavumbagu also cited an incident when around 20 journalists complained of being beaten by police while attending a news conference at the home of an expelled ruling party legislator.

Burundi is finally enjoying peace after 12 years of civil war that pitted rebels from the Hutu majority against a government controlled by the Tutsi minority.

Sunday, May 21, 2006

The former parliamentarian and activist Térence Nahimana should be released at once, Human Rights Watch said today, adding that his imprisonment raises questions about freedom of expression in Burundi.

Nahimana was jailed after he questioned why the Burundian government had not opened peace negotiations with the National Liberation Forces (FNL), a rebel movement that expressed its readiness to talk more than two months ago.

“Guarantees of free speech are essential so that people can speak their minds on issues of public importance, like war and peace,” said Alison Des Forges, senior Africa adviser at Human Rights Watch. “Arresting someone for questioning government actions sends a message that dissenters shouldn’t dare to speak out.”

In a May 5 letter to Burundian President Pierre Nkurunziza, and at a subsequent news conference, Nahimana mooted several explanations for the government’s delay in starting peace talks with the FNL, including that Burundi intended to join Rwanda and Uganda in invading neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The FNL is said to have bases in Congo, and continued conflict with the FNL could serve as a pretext for the Burundian army to cross the border into Congo.

On May 15, after being detained for five days, Nahimana was formally charged with “threatening state security.” The charges are said to be based on legislative provisions that make it a crime to expose Burundi to foreign hostility and that prohibit incitement of the population against the government or incitement to civil war.

There is no evidence that the issues Nahimana raised as public debate have evoked any hostility from a neighboring country or have given rise to any form of public disorder.

“Preserving state security is clearly an important government responsibility,” said Des Forges, “But the facts in this case suggest that Nahimana’s arrest is directed at silencing opposition, not responding to genuine security worries.”

Concerns about the exercise of freedom of expression and the media’s ability to operate freely were raised in an earlier, unrelated, incident on April 17, when journalists reporting on a news conference by a former parliamentarian, Mathias Basabose, were confined at his house for some hours. Several were beaten by police.

Burundi has been a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 1990 and is bound under the covenant to guarantee protection for freedom of expression. It is also bound to do so under the African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Nahimana also suggested that Burundian officials were stalling the peace talks in an effort to delay the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, which is to examine alleged violations of international law committed during the conflict. Nahimana said that several government officials expected to be accused of violations before the commission.

Following his statements, Nahimana was summoned twice, on May 9 and 10, for questioning by the National Intelligence Service, known as the Documentation National. Intelligence agents interrogated him about the contents of the letter and his statements in the related news conference.

Initially held incommunicado for 48 hours, Nahimana was later allowed visitors, including access to his lawyer. On May 15 he was formally charged and transferred to the central prison in Bujumbura.

“Unless authorities have evidence to support these charges against Nahimana, they should be dropped,” said Des Forges. “At the very least he should be given immediate pre-trial release so that he can prepare his defense.”

Nahimana is the president of Cercle d’initiative pour une vision commune (CIVIC), a non-governmental organization that works for the peaceful resolution of conflicts and establishment of the rule of law in Burundi. A former member of the FNL, he left the rebel movement in 1990. Since founding CIVIC in 2003, Nahimana has met with FNL leaders to encourage peace negotiations, mostly recently in March 2006 in Dar es Salaam. He informed several members of the government before meeting with the FNL. He claims no political party affiliation.

The new Burundian government was elected in August 2005, following a decade of civil war and a long process of political transition. The new leadership previously belonged to the country's largest rebel group, the CNDD-FDD. The FNL, led by Agathon Rwasa, continues to fight the Burundian military while calling for peace negotiations to begin.

"The Police have the authority to beat anyone who does not obey the law" - Burundian government announces bonuses for police who beat up journalists

Bujumbura - Burundian President Pierre Nkurunziza will reward the police official who last week ordered the detention and assault of several journalists, the interior minister said on Tuesday.

The reporters had gone to a news conference last week at the home of Matthias Basabose, who was expelled from Nkurunziza's Forces for the Defence of Democracy (FDD) party after making corruption allegations about a senior party member.

Evariste Ndayishimiye said that "police have the authority to beat anyone who does not obey the law" in remarks contradicting the condemnation by Nkurunziza's spokesperson of the journalists' detention and beating.

"The president said that he will reward the police who led the squad which was sent to the home of Matthias Basabose because he fulfilled his duty very well and I agree with him (the president)," Ndayishimiye said in a speech relayed to local radio stations.

"I told journalists that if the police tell you not to go beyond this line and you do so, they have the permission to beat you," he said.

Last Tuesday, a day after police detained about 20 journalists, Nkurunziza's office denounced the act, insisting that the president never ordered the police to carry out the detention and the beatings.

Basabose, who ran Nkurunziza's successful presidential election campaign last year, had wanted to present his side of the story in his dispute with FDD president Hussein Radjabu whom he accused of embezzlement and judicial impropriety.

Burundi in history: "An important piece of real estate" - US State Department memos, May to October 1972

Burundi Political Crisis - The Burundi Government has been under attack from insurgents supported by outside forces who may have entered the country from Tanzania or Zaire and joined with local tribesmen.

President Micombero remains in command of the Government and the army, but his forces have not been able to regain complete control of parts of the Bururi Province in southern Burundi where some fighting continues, hundreds of people reportedly have been killed and large areas devastated.

There are no reports of Americans or Europeans having been harmed in any of the violence. Our Embassy has advised the 125 Americans, mainly missionaries, residing in Burundi to exercise extreme prudence and remain close to their missions since there were rumors of American involvement stemming from missionary contacts with tribesmen.

In response to Micombero's request for international assistance for the refugees, Ambassador Melady has offered foodstuffs from Catholic Relief Service supplies stored in Bujumbura and plans to make additional purchases utilizing disaster relief funds.

Except for the potential danger to American citizens residing in Burundi, no American interests are threatened.

...We have been in something of a dilemma over what to do about Burundi. On the one hand, the slaughter is systematic and extensive, probably involving upwards of 100,000 victims. There are strong humanitarian reasons for trying to halt it, as well as the prospect of increasing political criticism -- like Kennedy's -- if we don't act. On the other hand, there's not much we can do realistically. Our leverage in the country is miniscule. We could contemplate a public statement denouncing events, but this would have little or no positive effect in Burundi, except to subject our Embassy to official wrath -- perhaps including closure of the Mission -- and would result in African accusations that we are meddling in their affairs. For these reasons, a public statement would be contrary to our policy of avoiding quixotic moral posturing.

...BURUNDI TRIBAL SLAUGHTER GOES ON: THE EXTERMINATION OF HUTU MALES WITH ANY SEMBLANCE OF AN EDUCATION SEEMS TO BE CONTINUING IN BURUNDI. HOPES THAT UN EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH A HUMANITARIAN PRESENCE IN BURUNDI WOULD INFLUENCE THE TUTSI GOVERNMENT TO STOP. THE REPRESSION HAVE NOT YET MATERIALIZED. AMONG THE AFRICANS, ONLY PRESIDENT MOBUTU HAS SHOWN ANY SORT OF READINESS TO INVOLVE THE ORGANIZATION OF AFRICAN UNITY IN BURUNDI. NOT EVEN NEIGHBORING RWANDA, WHICH HAS A HUTU GOVERNMENT, HAS SOUGHT OAU ACTION TO SAVE BURUNDI'S HUTUS. AS FOR OURSELVES, WE ARE ASSISTING REFUGEE EFFORTS IN ZAIRE, RWANDA AND TANZANIA AS WELL AS CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES IN BURUNDI, WHICH REPORTEDLY HAS ACCESS TO ALL THE POPULATION.

As had happened often in the past, on April 29 a group of Hutus tried to precipitate a revolt against the ruling Tutsi tribe. The revolt failed but touched off a bloody reprisal that led to possibly over 100,000 Hutu deaths, and to nearly a half-million Hutu widows and orphans.

Tribalism was at the root of the Burundi warfare. The Hutus, who rep-resent 85% of the population, wanted to overthrow the tall Tutsi (Watusis) who make up 15% of the people. The Hutu rebels killed every Tutsi that they ran across during their initial rampage which triggered the Tutsi decision to exterminate all Hutus with any semblance of leadership, i. e., those who could read or write, or those who wore shoes. Sixty thousand Hutus fled the country.

The Burundi tragedy appears to have been a strictly internal, tribal matter. Except for Zaire, which at first assisted the Burundi Government because it believed the invading rebels were connected with former Congolese dissidents, there was no African intervention. In fact, no African leader spoke out publicly against the massacres nor sought to involve the UN or the Organization of African Unity (OAU).

The United States, for humanitarian reasons and due to some Congressional concern (Senators Kennedy and Tunney), tried to interest the Africans in taking the matter to the OAU. Only Mobutu contemplated such action. Leaders such as Selassie, Ahidjo and Nyerere did not want to intervene in Burundi's internal affairs. We also urged the UN to establish a humanitarian presence hoping that this would lead to an end to the repression. Such a presence came too late.

Burundi's former colonial master, Belgium, publicly denounced the Burundi genocide, stopped military aid and slowed down their economic assistance. This had little effect on the Tutsi Government. Other Europeans, particularly the French, maintained a hands-off posture.

There is no evidence that the PRC [People's Republic of China] or USSR have played any role in Burundi, or that they seek to profit from the situation.

The outlook for the future seems bleak. Reconciliation between the Hutus and Tutsis seems impossible, and it is hard to imagine a stable situation before the majority Hutus prevail, as they have in neighboring Rwanda.

Our own interests in Burundi are microscopic (we buy some coffee). We have 150 citizens there, mostly missionaries. There has never been any threat to the safety of Europeans, whose protection the Burundi Government assured to avoid outside intervention...

Between April 29 and the end of July, serious ethnic violence flared in Burundi. The United States during this period, both in Burundi and outside, made strong efforts to awaken African and international concern and to encourage relief to those affected.

What Actually Happened

Elements of the majority Hutu ethnic group plotted to overthrow the minority Tutsi regime. The Hutus struck in various localities on April 29, killing several thousand Tutsis. The Tutsi army with superior firepower quickly mastered the Hutu dissidents. A wave of reprisals followed, resulting in the deaths of more than 100,000 Hutus, and approximately 60,000 Hutu refugees in neighboring Rwanda, Zaire and Tanzania. (Burundi has a population of 3.6 million.)

Some of the killing was spontaneous with Tutsis attacking their Hutu neighbors. A great deal of the killing, however, was done by the government in a calculated manner designed to eliminate present and future Hutu leadership. The Tutsis clearly gave vent to their deepest fears of being eliminated as an ethnic group. Tutsis in Burundi have long been afraid of the kind of Hutu revolt which destroyed the Tutsis of Rwanda in 1959.

One of our major concerns was the safety of 150 U.S. missionaries who chose to stay with their parishoners, most of whom were Hutus. Despite the panic and the frenzy, the Tutsis were able to assure the safety of foreigners so as to minimize any basis for external involvement. In our approach to the crisis we were conscious of past Burundi suspicions against Americans. Two American Ambassadors have been asked to leave the country since independence. We were also conscious of Burundi's closeness to Zaire where we have major interests...

As you recommended in your memorandum at Tab 2, the President agreed that relations with Burundi should be minimal but he added: "K - also see the Burundi Ambassador." The purpose of this memorandum is to get those instructions conveyed to State either orally, as we would suggest, or in written form as provided for in Tab 1.

In addition to informing State about our minimal relationship, the Department would be asked to call in the Burundi Ambassador and tell him that as a result of the systematic killings which took place in his country we cannot consider our relations to be normal. This line would anger the Burundi Government but probably not lead to a break in relations or to an ouster of our mission there. Such an ouster would not be in our interest because of our desire (State and CIA feel strongly about this) to monitor potential anti-Zairian activity in Burundi. (As African maps indicate, Burundi is the back door to the traditionally most restive part of Zaire (Congo). If the PRC or USSR wanted to stir up trouble in Eastern Zaire, Burundi would be the ideal basing point for rebels.) Otherwise, our interests in Burundi are minimal...

In view of the considerable current interest in the U.S. relationship with Burundi, I would like to make one or two comments for the record. They are made in the light of events since submission of Mr. Eliot's memorandum to Mr. Kissinger, dated September 24, 1972, and are of course purely personal.

1. Recent political developments in Burundi indicate a growth in the strength of the more moderate of the Tutsi factions comprising the cabinet. The Prime Minister can be said to head this faction, although it appears to have the general support if not guidance, of President Micombero. Such national reconciliation as may be possible in the coming months will, I believe, take place more easily under this group than under the leadership of the Simbananiye-Shibura-Rwuri faction. The latter is more radical both on foreign policy matters and on the question of how to deal with the Hutu majority.

2. We have indications that the Belgians are seriously considering terminating their military assistance to Burundi over the next year or two. While multilateral and bilateral economic assistance to Burundi may remain at roughly recent levels, the prospect of losing Belgian military support is likely to have a disproportionate effect on the insecure Tutsi regime. In this atmosphere, any U.S. move vis.a.vis Burundi would be examined closely for its implications for total Western intentions toward that country. The GRB is lonely and will certainly seek alternatives if it thinks the West is pulling out.

3. Chinese interest in economic [text illegible] in Burundi continues. PRC willingness to help fill the potential military gap cannot be ruled out, though a minority elitist government is not the most comfortable bedfellow for the PRC or perhaps -- in the longer term -- the most useful one. In any event, both the PRC and President Mobutu continue today to consider Burundi an important piece of real estate at the vulnerable eastern door to Zaire. If the Zaire rebels were given active support by a Burundi government, including the use of sanctuary and supply lines, the Zaire government would be faced with a substantially more serious dissident problem in the East. [text not declassified]

I therefore believe that it is in the interest of the U.S. to retain the greatest possible flexibility in Burundi, continuing our minimum presence during the current difficult period but leaving us free to make selected gestures toward the GRB if political and intertribal developments within Burundi make this useful and feasible.

Monday, May 01, 2006

Justice for the victims of Buta

This week sees the ninth anniversary of the April 30th 1997 Buta massacre, when CNDD-FDD combatants attacked a Catholic seminary in Buta, Bururi province, Burundi. According to survivors, the attackers attempted to separate Hutu students from their Tutsi classmates. When the students refused to be divided along ethnic lines, the killers massacred them all. No-one has yet been brought to justice for the massacre. Under the terms of a 2003 deal between CNDD-FDD and the then government (supported by the United Nations), all former CNDD-FDD combatants currently enjoy immunity from prosecution.